May 18, 2014 06:00 AM CDTMay 16, 2014 02:23 PM CDTSounding Off: Allen readers tell us if they think prayer should be part of public meetings

Sounding Off: Allen readers tell us if they think prayer should be part of public meetings

1/1

CAROLYN KASTER/AP

Rev. Dr. Rob Schenck (right), of Faith and Action, prays in front of the Supreme Court with Raymond Moore (center) and Patty Bills, both also of Faith and Action, during a news conference May 5 in Washington, D.C.The Supreme Court upheld Christian prayers at the start of local council meetings.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of prayer in public meetings, even if the prayer plainly favors a specific religion. Do you agree or disagree that invocations should be used in public meetings in your city?

Larry Tooker, Fairview: Invocations should be used in public meetings. Whether or not they seem to be “Christian only” is irrelevant if the offended listeners simply note that these invocations always ask for peace, safety of participants, care for loved ones and guidance, and express thanks for life, this nation, food, and liberty and freedom. It’s the faith found in invocations and prayers that has given countless men and women through the ages — and certainly in our country — courage and direction to carry on in efforts for good. Detractors should appreciate any plea — in any religion’s name — for these virtues and life matters. There is no downside. None.

John L. Sprague, Allen: To me, the question is not “Should invocations be used?” but “How should invocations be used?” In such a diverse religious community as we have today, we ought to be able to invoke the spirit of God that resides in all our hearts without offending believers of Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or any other faith by addressing our invocations in universally acceptable terms. But that takes some forethought and acceptance.

Judy Cote, Allen: There should not be religious invocations at the beginning of public meetings, especially meetings related to government or public schools. Thomas Jefferson’s separation of church and state addresses this, and should be respected. People who would be required to endure a prayer that they are not a believer in would feel at best uncomfortable, and at worst, excluded, alienated, upset and offended. Not only do the individuals in the religious minority feel uncomfortable, alienated and excluded, their identification to the group if they ask to not have such a prayer likely causes people in the religious majority to feel negatively toward them and be less likely to listen to or value their input. Someone’s religious beliefs are nobody’s business, are not for public discussion in a public meeting, and have no place in a public meeting unless it is in fact a religious institution’s meeting.

Joe Benik, Allen: The Founding Fathers, all deeply religious men, set up our country in such a way that religious expression and public business were not conducted in the same space, and that decision has served us well over the years. So objections to invocations in public meetings, religious statues in public squares and prayer in public schools aren’t assaults on Christianity, nor signs of a war on Christmas. They are merely affirmations that we live in a country that respects all religious views, and doesn’t endorse any particular one, no matter how worthy it may be.

Patricia Kimbell, Celina: I agree that public meetings should include an invocation. If it is Christian in nature, it would not include the non-Christians in the blessings, thus excluding them from any interest in the invocation. It is their right to ignore the invocation, just as it is the Christian’s right to include the invocation.

Philip B. Green, Lucas: This is a very welcome decision. The tradition of allowing leaders to initiate meetings with an invocation that reflects the values of the local community goes back to the founders of the country and the framers of the Constitution. Whether dissenters like it or not, the founders of our country had a strong Judeo-Christian background and founded a country that reflected their values. They did not want a theocracy in which the Head of the state was the head of the church. Many had emigrated to this new country because of religious persecution and inserted Article I into the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. Article I does not guarantee freedom from religion.

Ken Hansen, Fairview: To participate in a silent invocation would allow the participants time to “think deeply and at length” about the importance of the upcoming activity. There does not have to be any religiously connotation unless the deep thinker wants it to have one. The religious participants call on any of the various gods that exist, those with no god can call on their conscience. All of us are none the worse for having reminded ourselves to act fairly and do what is right.

Jon Taylor, Fairview: I don’t think it’s racist, homophobic or anti-ethnic. I think the reading of an invocation at the beginning of any meeting is a wise idea. The idea being that “some greater” power is watching over the proceedings. Whether it be God, Allah, Buddha or any other deity that could impart wisdom over the proceedings. I believe the motive for the lawsuits and protests is now that everyone, including some of the fringe elements, are not only getting their say but also their way. The easiest format I see in solving the dilemma is to open the blessing to any other denomination that may want to participate.

Ron Austin, Allen: It should be up to the official who calls the meeting to order. That would depend on the type of government a municipality has chosen. To pray or not to pray often is a graduation issue. More often than not, the persons chosen would ask the principal for ideas or guidance. This doesn’t have to go to the Supreme Court if everyone would respect the fact that should a person earn the honor of doing the traditional honors, they should be respected, even if it is different. No one can make me pray and no person can stop me.

Dennie J. Frailey, Fairview: The only right way to do this is not to have such an invocation. However, it might be a reasonable compromise to vary the invocations each time with a different religion being represented each time. A non-denominational invocation spoken by an individual who does not represent a specific religious view might be reasonable. In the absence of such an approach, it is inappropriate to start the meetings with a prayer, especially utilizing a minister or other representative of a particular religious viewpoint. This is clearly promoting a specific religious viewpoint.

Joni Halpin, Allen: I have no problem at all with invocations being included in public meetings. Those who don’t like it need to be more accommodating and less easily offended. We certainly don’t need the federal government deciding for us what to include in our local meetings.

Rich Buickerood, Allen: This question is definitely on the slippery slope of political and religious correctness, but I think an invocation has its place. It’s OK as long as the presenter is mindful of their audience probably not being 100 percent Christian. I’ve been to many a luncheon where the “over-the-top” Christian prayer was embarrassing.

Catherine Casterline, Anna: Those who do not wish to participate in the prayer can pray to themselves whenever they want to. Our Constitution allows us to pray and worship in our own manner. Arguing something that has already been argued over 200 years ago is senseless. We need to think of what is going on today!

Dan Lair, Allen: I have no problem with invocations being used to start a governmental function. The attendees don’t have to listen nor bow their head if they choose not to, just like I don’t have to watch a television show if I chose not to, but my not liking a television show does not give me the right nor the privilege to say that you can’t watch or attempt to stop you from watching the show.

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.